Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what happens, what does not happen ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'), that it is free, and what the tool returns: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with 'Read first' and compresses the essential behavioral facts into a few sentences. It is slightly dense and the pronoun 'it' could momentarily cause ambiguity, but every sentence contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the underlying submit_enquiry behavior, the non-commitment nature, and the return contents. It gives an agent enough context to decide when to call it and what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially complete, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for no parameters is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Read first' and clearly states that the tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Tax Investigation Cost. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by positioning itself as the descriptive precursor to that action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Read first' provides clear usage context: this should be used before acting on submit_enquiry. The description also clarifies what submit_enquiry does not do, which helps avoid misuse, but it does not explicitly compare against enquiry_fields or give a formal when-not-to-use rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.